CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 novembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91 November 2006 Podoreški v. Croatia (dec.) - 13587/03 Decision 16.11.2006 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Court's failure to refer to a higher instance an allegation of bias, grounded on fact that its president who had not sat on the case was married to applicant's opponent: admissible   During the first-instance proceedings instituted against her the applicant requested withdrawal of all judges of the competent municipal and county courts, submitting that the acting president of the second‑instance court where the case might end up at a later stage, Judge   L.H., was the wife of one of the plaintiffs in her case. In 1997, upon referral from the municipal court, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request, finding no indication of bias in respect of the first-instance court. In respect of the second-instance court the Supreme Court concluded that it would be premature to decide on its possible bias before the case actually reached that court. Once the first-instance decision had been rendered, in her appeal to the county court the applicant repeated, in 2001, her request claiming possible bias of that court. However, the county court did not forward her request to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the latter had already ruled on this issue. Instead, the court gave a decision on the merits of the case, dismissing the applicant's appeal. Judge L.H., being at that time president of the civil division of the county court, did not participate in the panel of judges deciding the case. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint, finding that the courts had correctly established the facts and applied the law. It did not refer to the alleged bias of the second-instance court. Admissible .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes